And Now the Gun Regulation Debate Begins…Again, and it’s Wrong

Written by Steve Cannon for USSANews.com.

Well, here we are again. Another mass shooting has occurred in America and already the liberals are on the warpath to introduce stricter gun laws (as if that would have prevented anything. Do criminals adhere to the law? Hardly. Hence their moniker of, criminal…defined as, a person whoignores the law!) This is a typical and predictable knee-jerk reaction from people who react emotionally to a tragedy rather than reacting with well-reasoned thought. Tip: Laws are based on logic, not emotion.

Thought Exercise #1: Guns kill, ban them. (This coming from politicians who have armed guards.) This is the argument the liberal left would have you believe. Let’s assume they truly believe that guns kill. If guns kill, why then is Adam Lanza in prison? If guns kill, why is the Aurora shooter, James Holmes, in prison? “Free the men and imprison the guns!” This should be their mantra. But they won’t say that. And if guns kill, all of mine must defective because they never killed anyone. You get my point? People kill, not the tools they use.

Liberal logic falls apart. Liberals focus on how people are killed rather than why people are killed. Focusing on how enables liberals to blame the inanimate tools used to kill rather than the those who pull the trigger. People will kill with any tool available, including their bare hands. Regulating guns, or any other tool, will do nothing to prevent this. Figuring out why people kill can actually prevent murder. Unfortunately, we never hear about all of the crimes that weren’t committed.

Let’s play along though. Okay, let’s ban guns. Next up, knives kill! Ban them! Followed by, rocks kill! Ban them! The point is, it will never end. The word “kill” implies intent. Inanimate objects cannot have intent and therefore cannot kill. Only living beings can have intent and only living beings can kill.

Look, we all deplore these mass killings. Unfortunately, it’s the price we pay to live in a free society. Would you prefer to be patted down every time you walked into a store or have your bags searched every day when you go to work? Hardly. 99% of the population is harmless, honest, and good-natured, while the other 1% make up the crazies and evil in our society. We all know that. Would you prefer the 99%, who are responsible, to be armed with the ability to protect the innocent people, or have the 99% of responsible people be unarmed and do nothing when innocent people are being killed?

It’s simple logic. Good and responsible people overwhelmingly outnumber the bad and irresponsible people. Unfortunately, you cannot regulate crazy or pure evil. It’s because of this that we need good people to be armed and who are willing to step up at a moment’s notice to protect the rest of us. Police cannot be everywhere all of the time. (Personally, I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.) Life-threatening situations happen within seconds. Police responses take minutes. I have a right to live and protect the life of myself and my family – and anyone else for that matter.

Imagine the outcome of the Mandalay Massacre if the guest in the room next door to Stephen Paddock had been armed. There’s a 99% chance he would have been a good and responsible person who could have stopped Paddock from killing most of the 59 people he did.

Thought Exercise #2:Police do not prevent crime.At best, they stop crimes in progress. Think about the number of crimes police have actually prevented. (Jeopardy theme goes here.) The answer is close to zero. Don’t get me wrong, the police are very useful and needed and can stop crimes in progress, but they do not prevent crime, they simply clean up after a crime has occurred. (Superman prevents crime, and he’s not real.)

Really think about that. Have you ever called the police before a crime to have it prevented? Have the police ever shown up so fast that the crime was thwarted? Or do they show up after your house was robbed, or after the murderer left the scene to ask any survivors questions? They may act as a deterrent if present (because they’re armed) but outside of that, they cannot and do not prevent crime.

Thought Exercise #3: Laws prevent crime. Laws have never prevented any crime. Laws act as a deterrent in the hopes of preventing crime, but they do not prevent anything. All they offer is a penalty after the crime has been committed. (“Gee, I wanna kill all of those people in that outdoor arena but I can’t. It’s against the law” – said no one ever.) Good people do not need laws to act responsibly. Bad and irresponsible people will ignore any law they want. Laws penalize the bad or irresponsible people, that’s it.

For Example: Fortunately for Chicago residents, guns are all but illegal, and Chicago’s gun crime rate is so low that…oh, damn. Yup, highest in the nation. This is the perfect example of why banning guns and enacting countless laws will not prevent crime. Why?

Criminals do not adhere to the law.

Disarming responsible people makes them defenseless against said criminals, allowing crime to skyrocket.

The Solution!

More freedom. Simple as that. Reduce the number of gun regulations and let everyone own a gun. Naturally, they’ll need to be trained and vetted for responsibility, but this is the solution.

Thought Exercise #4: A 6’4”, 300 pound man confronts a 5’2”, 120 pound woman. Who wins? The man, obviously. Same scenario, now both are armed. Who wins? Who knows? Now, they are both on equal footing…which is the point of allowing everyone to be armed. Being armed puts everyone on an equal footing (which, by the way, is all I hear the left cry about lately – equality.) An armed society is a polite society. Incidentally, this is how we won the Cold War. Both the USA and the USSR were armed fairly equally, which prevented WWIII.

Look, I get it, most liberals abhor guns, primarily because they’re afraid of them. They’re afraid of them because they do not truly know how to use them or have never been exposed to them. (They’re also afraid of power tools for the same reason.) The solution to that fear is to confront that fear. Learn about guns, touch them, be trained how to properly handle them. And finally, learn how to shoot them responsibly. Trust me, it’s like learning to drive.

After a few weeks of driving, the anxiety and fear dissipates. The same is true with shooting. It too becomes, “natural and comfortable.” Now, both driving and gun shooting is another simple task that is stress free…and I’m proud I can do both responsibly in my America. My free society.